sorry this is a cut-and-paste, but it came from a friend of mine and i don't want you to think it's my words.<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>In the aftermath of the RNC, it seems that the polling has been all over the place. Zogby has the race within the margin of error. Rasmussen has Bush up 4. Time has Bush up 11. Newsweek also has Bush up 11. Obviously, someone is wrong. <br><br>Now I saw the Newsweek numbers, and was obviously disheartened. Though I did remember back to 2000 when Bush opened up a 14 point lead after the RNC, and we all know how that turned out. But when I got to the actual Newsweek numbers, I was struck by a number of things.<br><br>The sample size of the poll is 1008 registered voters. 374 Republicans, 303 Democrats, and 300 independents were polled (yes I know that doesn't add up to 1008, I'm just going off the Newsweek number). Thus, if my math (and I'm using 977 rather than 1008) is correct 38% of those polled are Republicans, 31% are Democrats, and 31% are Independents. I probably didn't pay attention well in PolySci classes, but doesn't this skew the results? Why survey 7% more Republicans than Dems? Do Reps have a 7% edge in national party affiliation? Is this weighed based on projected turnout?<br><br>The more you look, the weirder the figures get. 541 of those polled are Bush/Cheney supporters while 403 are Kerry/Edwards supporters. Again, why the skew?<br><br>Finally, there are some interesting figures on the RNC, which seem to contradict the topline figures.<br><br>"From what you saw or heard about George W. Bush's acceptance speech,is your opinion of Bush more favorable or less favorable?"<br><br>More - 37%<br>Less - 18%<br>No change - 22%<br>Didn't watch - 22%<br><br>Now they provide the numbers from Kerry's speech, with the same question<br><br>More - 43%<br>Less - 17%<br>No change - 22%<br>Didn't watch - 15%<br><br><br>"From what you saw or heard about this week's Republican Convention, is your opinion of the Republican Party more favorable or less favorable?"<br><br>More - 36%<br>Less - 27%<br>No Change - 23%<br>Didn't follow - 12%<br><br>Same question from the 2004 Democratic Convention<br><br>More - 41%<br>Less - 24%<br>No Change - 22%<br>Didn't follow - 9%<p><hr></blockquote><p>perhaps more people in california and NY switched to dubya, but not nearly enough to win those electoral votes in those states, but enough to change the national polls. Or perhaps more in texas are voting for dubya, but he already had that state. in any regard, there's two months left and joe lockhart is taking over kerry's campaign (former clinton aide). should be a battle to the end.<br><br>"Tribal sovereignty means that, it's sovereign. You're a—you've been given sovereignty, and you're viewed as a sovereign entity. And, therefore, the relationship between the federal government and tribes is one between sovereign entities." dubya 8.6.04

Weighted polling . . . <br><br>Dick Morris outlines liberal skewed New York Times polling bias in this book:<br><br><br><br>Another book that details the Times polling bias can be found in this book:<br><br><br><br>****************<br><br>[color:blue]VOTE</font color=blue>[color:red] for President George W. Bush on November 2, 2004</font color=red>

fine. if given a choice between dick morris and, uh, just about anything . . . i'll take anything. <br><br>what about the newsweek poll?<br><br>personally, my biggest issue with polling on a national scene is that this election is about the electoral college, so i tend to trust state-by-state polling much more than national numbers. rasmussen is good at following the battleground states.<br><br>"Tribal sovereignty means that, it's sovereign. You're a—you've been given sovereignty, and you're viewed as a sovereign entity. And, therefore, the relationship between the federal government and tribes is one between sovereign entities." dubya 8.6.04<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by sean on 09/06/04 02:50 PM (server time).</EM></FONT></P>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>fine. if given a choice between dick morris and, uh, just about anything . . . i'll take anything.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Why? Bill Clinton thought enough of Dick Morris, and his polling knowledge, to use him for his re-election campaign in 1996. Morris is an expert when it comes to this stuff. What's your beef with Morris? <br><br>Regardless, Morris details how the Times consistently skews their polls to the left. You ought to read up on it.<br><br>****************<br><br>[color:blue]VOTE</font color=blue>[color:red] for President George W. Bush on November 2, 2004</font color=red>

I don't think there's reason to doubt the Time and Newsweek polls. It shows that the SwiftBoat attack ads and the RNC gave Bush a big boost. Other polls, Like Zogby and Rasmussen show the spread much smaller, but either way Bush is leading. <br><br>Dick Morris is a world-class putz. Attacking the Clintons sells lots of books. Attacking Kerry gets lots of ink and air time. FoxNews loves him, is he a paid FoxNews Consultant or just a regular guest? So, if Morris says Time is skewered to the left, is that worth 5 points -- Bush really has what, a 20 -25 point lead? Since the Liberal Media is reponsible for at least 15 points (as you posted sometime ago), then Bush is actually 35 points ahead? <br><br>Liberal biased polls suck, don't they. What poll do you trust?<br><br>

Don't be bummed by even a 13 point lead. As Dukakis and Bush the first know, that media loves the underdog and the knives come out for the leader. Can we talk about a failed policy in Iraq now? How about invading a country under false pretext? All that good stuff. Carville has to stop pokin' Mary and get on the horse.<br><br>Bush doesn't have a chance.<br><br>luciferase is a four nineteener

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Bush doesn't have a chance.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Wow, how long has it been since you took a trip across the nation? I wish I shared your optimism, but I see Bush winning again. <br><br>It may be that the republicans are dirtier and more negative in the campaigning, but whatever it is its working. <br><br>Think about it. Bush won by a hair, no a fraction of a hair, in 2000. Nearly everything about his presidency thus far has been bad, yet he leads the polls four years later! Its incredible. He has more than a chance.<br><br>

Does going up and down the east coast count? By bumper sticker count Bush wins. But by talking to people there are a lot of conservatives royally ticked at Bush about Iraq, driving up the deficit by spending everything in sight and basically lying his ass off.<br><br>luciferase is a four nineteener

Driving up and down the east coast all the way from Maine to Florida would count. But if you don't go further south than Jersey, not it doesn't. I'm afraid I agree with Trog on this. I see four more years of disaster heading our way, this time without the restraint that reelection places on people.<br><br>

I made it to South Carolina. I was in New Hampshire and Vermont before that. SC and NC only the ones selling crazy aren't pissed at Bush.<br><br>But maybe I just attract those liberal wackos.<br><br>But 57 days left. Do you think Bush can go 57 days, through the debates without doing something stupid? I know Rove has him on a pretty short choke chain but he has to speak some day. Then we'll have him.<br><br><br><br>luciferase is a four nineteener

Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.

All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.